[gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 704 bytes --]


Hi, 

several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
server profiles. 

The easiest way to do this would be to 
* just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
* have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt 
users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).

Opinions?
[I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found 
here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]

Cheers, A


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Samuli Suominen]

On 16/01/13 01:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless)
> server profiles.
>
> The easiest way to do this would be to
> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt
> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).
>
> Opinions?
> [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found
> here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]
>
> Cheers, A
>
>

+1

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 851 bytes --]

16.01.2013 03:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
> server profiles. 
> 
> The easiest way to do this would be to 
> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt 
> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).
> 
> Opinions?
> [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found 
> here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]
> 
> Cheers, A
> 
> 
I remember, that hwoarang was strongly against removal of server profile.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo Linux Developer
Desktop-effects project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Markos Chandras]

On 16 January 2013 04:20, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 16.01.2013 03:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would
>> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless)
>> server profiles.
>>
>> The easiest way to do this would be to
>> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
>> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt
>> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).
>>
>> Opinions?
>> [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found
>> here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]
>>
>> Cheers, A
>>
>>
> I remember, that hwoarang was strongly against removal of server profile.
>
> --
> Best regards, Sergey Popov
> Gentoo Linux Developer
> Desktop-effects project lead
>

I still am, but looks like the majority of people want them removed,
so I don't mind.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

On 1/15/13 3:36 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
> server profiles. 
> 
> The easiest way to do this would be to 
> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt 
> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).

Sounds great! +1

If there are any concerns, why don't we adjust the 13.0 base profile or
something?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

[Michael Palimaka]

On 16/01/2013 10:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless)
> server profiles.
>
> The easiest way to do this would be to
> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt
> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).
>
> Opinions?
> [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is found
> here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]
>
> Cheers, A
>
>
+1. Cutting down of the number of useless profiles in the long run is a 
great idea.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

[Samuli Suominen]

On 16/01/13 08:52, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 10:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition
>> would
>> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather
>> useless)
>> server profiles.
>>
>> The easiest way to do this would be to
>> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
>> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e.
>> prompt
>> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).
>>
>> Opinions?
>> [I'm not doing anything with this regard unless a clear consensus is
>> found
>> here on the list. Otherwise I'll copy the dirs 1:1.]
>>
>> Cheers, A
>>
>>
> +1. Cutting down of the number of useless profiles in the long run is a
> great idea.

specially since it will make repoman faster. it takes a lot of time for 
it to process a lot of profiles. i mean, once it's gone from profiles.desc

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
> server profiles. 
> 

The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if
they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.

-1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough for the job 
and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. 

-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Michael Mol]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos
<pchrist@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would
>> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless)
>> server profiles.
>>
>
> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if
> they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
>
> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough for the job
> and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server.

The problem, I think, is that 'server' is a very generic thing. Am I
looking for a NAS? A SAN? A web server? A proxy server? An X11
application server? A font server? VOIP?

If people who use the server profile are looking for a minimalist
profile, I think they'd probably be best served with a profile that's
specifically designed for "we disable everything we can to still wind
up with a working stage 3. Enable what you need from there."

That also suggests a way to help automate maintenance; if building a
stage 3 with the minimal profile fails, then either the package has a
bug or the profile needs an update...with a strong bias toward the
former.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/16/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos 
> <pchrist@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0
>>> transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also
>>> in my opinion rather useless) server profiles.
>>> 
>> 
>> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and
>> if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
>> 
>> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal"
>> enough for the job and enabling certain things that someone may
>> need in a server.
> 
> The problem, I think, is that 'server' is a very generic thing. Am
> I looking for a NAS? A SAN? A web server? A proxy server? An X11 
> application server? A font server? VOIP?
> 
> If people who use the server profile are looking for a minimalist 
> profile, I think they'd probably be best served with a profile
> that's specifically designed for "we disable everything we can to
> still wind up with a working stage 3. Enable what you need from
> there."
> 
> That also suggests a way to help automate maintenance; if building
> a stage 3 with the minimal profile fails, then either the package
> has a bug or the profile needs an update...with a strong bias
> toward the former.
> 

Agreed. An extremely minimal profile would also interest those looking
to learn the fundamentals of Gentoo or come from other distros that
start with almost nothing. I'd certainly be interested in testing that
profile on a separate machine.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ9wwqAAoJEJUrb08JgYgH+o4H/394Ugp+Khdgmwn054QADhb9
pncIA+UPM5CkU6CfK3PAH8ZQShbU055Yc8mx9buraj1Ie+O8gJceZGGIkJNIzCDS
iCUMfzcSpam6EF2Zj9FDWeKJLWOuX/i15fs+p30ITy27eq5RDasU4t7umhw1pUdX
XkC4HGz9TDnHnjC9valfb7B7spuQuqngTnEf6IMosjVe0wMptRHozHaXvCnyoAWa
db9zpJ8gOLWBRC7G4/826sif74i+WHIIq3Af+g3F5VhVpfrtfDA/1h8O0p/Oe9Nk
FWU2bKjhZ/oPwSg90rrpOYcXhJBP+wQkpwtsWHA8OwgafeQ5Wgk+W5GQdg2BBJo=
=ho30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0
>> transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in
>> my opinion rather useless) server profiles.
>> 
> 
> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and
> if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
> 
> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough
> for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a
> server.
> 

Just to summarize the last massive thread on this:

1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years

2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile
is USE="+snmp" and maybe one other flag

3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such
there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful.

... i think that's about it?

PS: +1 from me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD2tjQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDGbwEAr4WGmtio2d+uWTkroEGCbu4U
53GdR5R3A4Fti8UXzj8A/iM805vMnkojNTNGw8b5XYVXPbYrZ9TJ4GPp0onE8AK8
=6Lja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Doug Goldstein]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
>> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0
>>> transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in
>>> my opinion rather useless) server profiles.
>>>
>>
>> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and
>> if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
>>
>> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough
>> for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a
>> server.
>>
>
> Just to summarize the last massive thread on this:
>
> 1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years

I think you're confusing updates with maintenance. They work fine as
is therefore no need for updates.

>
> 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile
> is USE="+snmp" and maybe one other flag

USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"

>
> 3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such
> there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful.

Just make the base profile as minimal as possible and people will be happy.


>
> ... i think that's about it?
>
> PS: +1 from me.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlD2tjQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDGbwEAr4WGmtio2d+uWTkroEGCbu4U
> 53GdR5R3A4Fti8UXzj8A/iM805vMnkojNTNGw8b5XYVXPbYrZ9TJ4GPp0onE8AK8
> =6Lja
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1623 bytes --]

On 01/16/2013 01:18 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 16/01/13 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
>>>> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>>>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0
>>>>> transition would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in
>>>>> my opinion rather useless) server profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and
>>>> if they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
>>>>
>>>> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough
>>>> for the job and enabling certain things that someone may need in a
>>>> server.
>>>>
> 
> Just to summarize the last massive thread on this:
> 
> 1 - they aren't maintained; they haven't changed for years
> 
>> I think you're confusing updates with maintenance. They work fine as
>> is therefore no need for updates.
> 
> 
> 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile
> is USE="+snmp" and maybe one other flag
> 
>> USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
> 
> 
> 3 - there isn't any general consensus on what makes a server, as such
> there isn't any consensus on how to make server profiles more useful.
> 
>> Just make the base profile as minimal as possible and people will be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> ... i think that's about it?
> 
> PS: +1 from me.
>>
> 
> 
> 

Agreed on making the base copy as minimal as possible.  (which it is, at
least good enough for me).


-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 2 - the only difference between server profiles and the base profile
>> is USE="+snmp" and maybe one other flag
>
> USE="-perl -python snmp truetype xml"
>

As has been pointed out previously, the "base" profile does not set
USE="perl python", so negating those flags in the server profile does
basically nothing. If certain packages have IUSE="+perl +python" it
might make a difference, but I don't think I have ever seen that.

IMO, setting truetype and xml for a "server" profile is just weird.

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> As has been pointed out previously, the "base" profile does not set
> USE="perl python", so negating those flags in the server profile does
> basically nothing. If certain packages have IUSE="+perl +python" it
> might make a difference, but I don't think I have ever seen that.
>
> IMO, setting truetype and xml for a "server" profile is just weird.
>

Yup, server profile is essentially base profile plus snmp, truetype,
and xml.  That really doesn't make sense.

++ to just dropping it, and by all means if people see ways to make
the base profile even more minimal please chime in, but it is already
the most minimal profile out there.

If somebody wants to come up with a server profile that actually makes
sense by all means do so, but I think the current one is just baggage.
 If we wanted server profiles that made sense most likely it would be
part of some more holistic program (with docs, etc) and broken down by
server type (mail, web, LAMP, etc).  That doesn't exist now, and I'm
not planning to build it.  :)

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/16/2013 08:32 AM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 00:36 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
>> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
>> server profiles. 
>>
> 
> The server profiles are not useless, if we can maintain them, and if
> they actually are, nowadays, they shouldn't be.
> 
> -1, unless other profile options being offered are "minimal" enough for the job 
> and enabling certain things that someone may need in a server. 
> 

We have a base profile, we have a desktop profile... wouldn't that make
the base the minimal profile that would likely be fit for a server? If
not, we really should move that way.  Having a base, desktop, and server
profile seems silly. Base profile is for servers in my eyes (and in my use).

- -ZC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=deIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Ben de Groot]

On 16 January 2013 22:16, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We have a base profile, we have a desktop profile... wouldn't that make
> the base the minimal profile that would likely be fit for a server? If
> not, we really should move that way.  Having a base, desktop, and server
> profile seems silly. Base profile is for servers in my eyes (and in my use).

+1

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Alexis Ballier]

Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server
and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with
multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only
eapi and parent files in them...

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 1/16/2013 11:32, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server
> and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with
> multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only
> eapi and parent files in them...
>
> A.
>
I would love to see this option, especially if eselect would allow us to 
activate multiple profiles. It would really make centralizing 
configuration across multiple machines much easier (i.e. one could 
activate the base profile and a personal profile from a layman overlay).

-- 
♫Dustin

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Zac Medico]

On 01/17/2013 12:32 AM, Dustin C. Hatch wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 11:32, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> Other option: kill the server subprofiles, keep profiles/target/server
>> and let people finally set /etc/make.profile as a dir and play with
>> multiple inheritance. We don't need dozens of subprofiles with only
>> eapi and parent files in them...
>>
>> A.
>>
> I would love to see this option, especially if eselect would allow us to
> activate multiple profiles. It would really make centralizing
> configuration across multiple machines much easier (i.e. one could
> activate the base profile and a personal profile from a layman overlay).

Funtoo has been active in this area:

http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Funtoo_1.0_Profile
http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Flavors_and_Mix-ins
http://www.funtoo.org/wiki/Custom_Profiles
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 664 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013, 00:36:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> Hi,
> 
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition
> would be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather
> useless) server profiles.
>

OK, I consider this consensus enough. 

[One nay conditional on other profiles not being minimal enough, and several 
people giving good reason why the server profile does not provide any 
additional value.]

Being the one that does the work, the server profiles are disappearing in 
13.0.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1792 bytes --]

On 22:14 Wed 16 Jan     , Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2013, 00:36:18 schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> OK, I consider this consensus enough. 
>
> ... 
> 
> Being the one that does the work, the server profiles are disappearing in 
> 13.0.
> 

Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp,
fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads
disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably
want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the
server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages). 

I've been devaway for long, probably this was discussed in the past (as
Ian (axs) pointed out), but am I the only one who finds it a little wrong? Don't
get me wrong on my example, above. Eg. I love fortran, however I don't know why I should
build it on every gcc update if I don't use it in my server (of course I
can disabled it, yes I know). 

Many have said that a "server" is something very generic, so is
"desktop". I think profiles were invented to make things easier and
safer for users, so now we 're doing it for "desktop" users but people
who want to build a server box have to scratch their heads from the
first moment. I'm fine with that if our community is fine with that. 

I'm not blaming anyone, as the server profiles are useless atm, it was the
right call to remove them. I'm just wondering if this happened because they
were not maintained properly or because we really don't need them. 

Panagiotis

* I took as example the base default/linux/amd64/10.0 .

ps. I'll try find the old discussions which may help me understand
things better.

-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1902 bytes --]


I think we agree that the last state of the server profiles was not useful. So 
let's discuss what would be useful. For the medium-term future, not for this 
current step now.

> 
> Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp,
> fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads
> disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably
> want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the
> server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages).
> 

my 2ct:
* dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile
* pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild

* for apache2 and mysql see below, should be off imho even in a server 
profile...

* caps should be discussed in a wider context (portage)

> 
> Many have said that a "server" is something very generic, so is
> "desktop". I think profiles were invented to make things easier and
> safer for users, so now we 're doing it for "desktop" users but people
> who want to build a server box have to scratch their heads from the
> first moment. I'm fine with that if our community is fine with that.
> 

Sure a server is something generic, too. 
However, since you mentioned mysql above, how about a postgres server?
Or a web server using a daemon different from apache? :)

This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be the same 
as a minimal profile. 
And then, defining a minimal profile separate from the base profile does not 
make too much sense. Rather, carefully try to move all specific stuff out of 
the base profile.

[ That said, CVS is such a pain, I'll not do anything like this again before 
we finish the GIT migration... :D ]

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59:11AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote

> Sure a server is something generic, too.  However, since you mentioned
> mysql above, how about a postgres server?  Or a web server using a
> daemon different from apache? :)
> 
> This is why I think (as others) a server profile should basically be
> the same as a minimal profile.  And then, defining a minimal profile
> separate from the base profile does not make too much sense. Rather,
> carefully try to move all specific stuff out of the base profile.

  If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with
USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or
ebuilds break.  That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a
"basic server" machine.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>   If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with
> USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or
> ebuilds break.  That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a
> "basic server" machine.

Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some
version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support
for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do
that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Michael Mol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
wrote:
> >   If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with
> > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or
> > ebuilds break.  That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a
> > "basic server" machine.
>
> Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some
> version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support
> for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do
> that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>

My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be
self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like "common" would retain
a profile for that "most people would want this" set.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1243 bytes --]

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:09:29AM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
> On Jan 17, 2013 3:35 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
> wrote:
> > >   If someone wants a *REALLY* basic system, they can start off with
> > > USE="-*" and add on stuff as necessary when portage complains and/or
> > > ebuilds break.  That's what I'd recommend to someone wanting to set up a
> > > "basic server" machine.
> >
> > Yeah, but that sucks with USE_EXPAND. For example, I sure want some
> > version of Python installed, but setting USE="-*" removes all support
> > for Python versions and has me add them one by one. I guess I could do
> > that, but now I always have to keep up to date myself, which sucks.
> 
> My thought is that base should have just enough enabled for stage3 to be
> self-hosting. Moving existing base to something like "common" would retain
> a profile for that "most people would want this" set.

  On a lark, I once tried the "default/linux/x86/10.0" profile for a
re-install on my netbook without "-*".  I soon ended up with more "-"
entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when
using "-*".  And I was only half-way through installing the apps I
normally use.  I went back to "-*".

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1970 bytes --]

On 23:47 Sat 19 Jan     , Walter Dnes wrote:
> ... 
>   On a lark, I once tried the "default/linux/x86/10.0" profile for a
> re-install on my netbook without "-*".  I soon ended up with more "-"
> entries in make.conf and package.use, than I have add-on entries when
> using "-*".  And I was only half-way through installing the apps I
> normally use.  I went back to "-*".
> 

I have to admit that I've been using USE="-* <myflags>" in my server boxes for a long
time now, however it's a nasty hack and I wish for a better alternative.
Profiles exist for reasons, bypassing them may break things unless you
know what you're doing and you're active in Gentoo's community (so that
have knowledge of certain bugs/news/discussions in mailing lists etc.). 

The problem is not with experienced users who can find their way. It is
with newcomers. I like the idea of having minimal base profiles and on
top of them desktop and/or server profiles enabling certain things.
Because newcomers will not have to scratch their heads (as I wrote
previously) from the first moment, if they enable one of them. 

Of course, even experienced users sometimes may become frustrated,
when doing everything manually. (-* etc.). And things become more
complex as time passes (new EAPIs, new portage features). 

This thread is about suggestions on better server profiles and need to
think about that. For example,I would like to see a server profile with
iptables and iproute2 on the system set. Maybe also a logger or
a metapackage pulling certain packages (eg. bind-tools and nfs-utils).
But it's just me, and it's a matter of taste/experience. I don't build
server machines every day, others do and it would be much appreciated if
they could respond here. 

Just, let's don't forget that profiles are not only about USE flags
(because most discussions have been about the latter). 
-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 618 bytes --]

Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be
> much appreciated if they could respond here. 

I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless
for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want.

Anything else seems a bit too random.

I haven't yet experimented with creating my own profiles. I might
still.


Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it.
They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g.
samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;)


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Ben de Groot]

On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
>> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be
>> much appreciated if they could respond here.
>
> I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless
> for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want.
>
> Anything else seems a bit too random.

This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile
to start building from. Too many people are doing this.

>
> Ben, binary distributions like debian without cups? Forget about it.
> They can't manage two differently compiled binary packages of e.g.
> samba, so guess if they will have a samba without printing support? ;)

I know, I am an idealist. Guess why I keep coming back to Gentoo...

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Ralph Sennhauser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:18 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> > Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> >> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be
> >> much appreciated if they could respond here.
> >
> > I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless
> > for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want.
> >
> > Anything else seems a bit too random.
> 
> This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile
> to start building from. Too many people are doing this.
> 

-* will still be required by those same people for EAPI 1 package
defaults. Cleaning a profile won't change that.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 1/21/2013 02:01, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:27:18 +0800
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
>>> Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
>>>> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be
>>>> much appreciated if they could respond here.
>>>
>>> I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless
>>> for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want.
>>>
>>> Anything else seems a bit too random.
>>
>> This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile
>> to start building from. Too many people are doing this.
>>
>
> -* will still be required by those same people for EAPI 1 package
> defaults. Cleaning a profile won't change that.
>
The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use 
default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my 
/etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for 
packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the 
profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.

-- 
♫Dustin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:
> The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
> default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use
> directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous
> defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering
> removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.

And this is the problem with having the default profile be really
minimal.  It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are
much more painful to override.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:28:47PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
> > default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use
> > directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous
> > defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering
> > removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.
> 
> And this is the problem with having the default profile be really
> minimal.  It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are
> much more painful to override.

  I don't think changing the profile is the solution.  I doubt that
dozens of maintainers will immediately unset unwanted default USE flags
simply because the default profile is made more bloated.  As I mentioned
in a previous message, my personal experience is that it's actually less
work to start with "-*", and add as required, rather than to use
defaults and then hack and slash at the unwanted stuff.

  Mind you, as per my sig, I run ICEWM and leave the extra ram for
useful applications.  We may simply have to admit that we can't please
everybody.  I suggest a "minimal" profile instead.  It would boot to a
text console, and have networking and portage, allowing you to build
further.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Ben de Groot]

On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
>> default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use
>> directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous
>> defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering
>> removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.
>
> And this is the problem with having the default profile be really
> minimal.  It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are
> much more painful to override.

No offense, but that's nonsense. You override it the exact same way.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 03:28, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use
>>> default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my /etc/portage/package.use
>>> directories have dozens of -flag entries for packages with ridiculous
>>> defaults, and almost none that come from the profile. I'm considering
>>> removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.
>>
>> And this is the problem with having the default profile be really
>> minimal.  It just moves the problem into per-package defaults that are
>> much more painful to override.
>
> No offense, but that's nonsense. You override it the exact same way.
>

Indeed, you're correct.  It is not necessary to do what Dustin
suggested to disable package use-defaults - if you set -foo in
make.conf it will apply to all packages even if it is a use-default.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:51:54AM -0600, Dustin C. Hatch wrote

> The package defaults have gotten out of hand, in my opinion. I use 
> default/linux/amd64/10.0 on all my machines and my 
> /etc/portage/package.use directories have dozens of -flag entries for 
> packages with ridiculous defaults, and almost none that come from the 
> profile. I'm considering removing pkginternal from USE_ORDER.

  Have you heard the old joke about how an elephant is actually a mouse
designed by a committee?  The same thing applies to distro bloat.  Some
people want feature A, others want feature B, and others want feature C.
The final result is a distro with features A *AND* B *AND* C.  I was
originally drawn to Gentoo with the "Gentoo Ricer" atitude.  But now
it's the fine-grained control of USE flags that makes me stay with
Gentoo.

  I think we may have to admit that "one size does not fit all".  There
are just too many individual scenarios.  A truly minimal build should be
sufficient to boot to a text console, and have networking and portage to
be able to build further up the chain.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Ben de Groot]

On 22 January 2013 10:36, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>   I think we may have to admit that "one size does not fit all".  There
> are just too many individual scenarios.  A truly minimal build should be
> sufficient to boot to a text console, and have networking and portage to
> be able to build further up the chain.

It's not something "we may have to admit". It's been the Gentoo
philosophy from the very start. That's why we have useflags and so on.
Gentoo is based on choice and customization.

The guiding idea for the base profile is that it should result in a
lean but functional system, with defaults that the majority of users
would need.

Maybe we have erred on the side of inclusiveness in the past, and now
is the time to move more towards minimalism, as we have a new set of
13.0 profiles being sculpted into shape.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

While I tend towards the cleaner design, not the "don't fix what isn't
*broken*" approach -- I'm fine either way. But I think the handbook or
some tool should obnoxiously spit the flags (and a minor
"justification" for each flag and/or the set of flags) of each profile
in your face when you are at the "set a profile" step of the
installation. This way it can clarify that the user might want to
disable some of the profile-enabled flags.

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD+R9cACgkQRtClrXBQc7WCUgD+MyFwwjQ9BQ8lakIIyAoTNxye
Z+6HQ3BYvJEZjlRJYwYA/2Y5EEX3gjq2KzhS1q8+nSa7CEycd2jJo6QtUZxjFk88
=+/+5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen
<alexander@plaimi.net> wrote:
>
> While I tend towards the cleaner design, not the "don't fix what isn't
> *broken*" approach -- I'm fine either way. But I think the handbook or
> some tool should obnoxiously spit the flags (and a minor
> "justification" for each flag and/or the set of flags) of each profile
> in your face when you are at the "set a profile" step of the
> installation. This way it can clarify that the user might want to
> disable some of the profile-enabled flags.

Not really sure that adds much value.  A few users might want to
disable everything, but just as many if not more are likely to want to
enable stuff that is disabled.  Should we therefore list all the flags
on the system and which ones are enabled and disabled?

I guess we could, but it is a REALLY long list.

In practice I find that the way I tend to use USE flags is that I just
ignore them until something unexpected happens, and then change them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 22/01/13 13:12, Rich Freeman wrote:

As a long-time user, I can't put myself in a first-time user's frame of
reference. But it would be useful for me whenever I'm installing
Gentoo on a new device, if I were able to have the profile's USE-flags
listed. (I know I can find them elsewhere, but it would still be
convenient for me.)

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD+jtUACgkQRtClrXBQc7XKvAD+L3kf/+txOUTGGTwcPDnZTDsb
v630SlBCE9uyoEx0SzgA/3rHGYYkGQ7w9srZ8LjFc3S3iZ0WV3OLOPw9QyRePr3P
=OcXI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:06:29PM +0100, Alexander Berntsen wrote

> As a long-time user, I can't put myself in a first-time user's frame
> of reference. But it would be useful for me whenever I'm installing
> Gentoo on a new device, if I were able to have the profile's USE-flags
> listed. (I know I can find them elsewhere, but it would still be
> convenient for me.)

  Maybe a note in the install docs to run...

emerge --info | grep "^USE"

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:12:06 -0500 as excerpted:

> Should we therefore list all the flags on the system and which ones are
> enabled and disabled?
> 
> I guess we could, but it is a REALLY long list.
> 
> In practice I find that the way I tend to use USE flags is that I just
> ignore them until something unexpected happens, and then change them.

The one thing I wish the handbook had taught, way back when I started 
(and I read the handbook well enough that even before I had a system up 
and running on gentoo... 2004.0/amd64 wasn't quite ready for NPTL and I 
blocked on it, but 2004.1 worked... I was helping others who apparently 
had /not/ read it so well!  this wasn't there and AFAIK still isn't), 
was...

>>>>>

"If in doubt, leave it out.  Remember, because gentoo is build-from-
source, every package installed has a much higher cost in terms of 
continuing upgrades over time, than on a binary distro.  If you aren't 
sure you're going to use it, or will only use it maybe a couple times a 
year, strongly consider omitting it, thus avoiding the upgrade cost.  You 
can always install it later if you find you REALLY need it.

"That applies to both packages and USE flags (which often bring in extra 
packages) on your system."

<<<<<

One of the first things I realized out of the gate was that keeping both 
gnome and kde installed wasn't going to be practical for me, and I 
preferred the better configurability of kde so I quickly dropped gnome.

But over the years my system has gotten progressively leaner as I trimmed 
this and that, one thing at a time, because there really IS a continuing 
maintenance cost to every single package installed, ESPECIALLY on the 
~arch systems I run where the package churn is much higher, even MORE so 
for those (like me) that like to run stuff like kde prereleases from the 
overlays.  KDE for example has two feature releases a year and updates 
every month, basically 12 releases a year.  For those running the pre-
releases, it's 16, as for the couple months before a feature release 
they're on a two-week update cycle.  For those running its pre-releases, 
KDE *BY* *ITSELF* is thus several hundred package upgrade builds 16 times 
a year (plus -rX bumps if any).

I've trimmed my kde to ~170 packages at last upgrade (and just trimmed a 
couple more after that, deciding with dolphin as my GUI fileman and 
firefox as my default browser I no longer needed konqueror or its addons, 
so I think I'm down to 168 per kde upgrade here, now).  With my six-core 
bulldozer and PORTAGE_TMPDIR in tmpfs, that's actually reasonable.


I wouldn't expect ordinary gentooers to go to the lengths I have to 
reduce system bloat while keeping functionality I actually use, as the 
system set I've negated is there fore a reason and USE=-* is discouraged 
for a reason -- it TAKES someone with quite some experience and knowledge 
to properly navigate those sorts of things.

But if anything, that's all the MORE reason there should be a minimal 
profile available, for those who want as lean an installation as 
possible.  The more stuff turned on the worse it gets, especially for USE 
flags on system set packages and the packages they in turn drag in, 
multiple levels down.

That's actually why I eventually killed my system set, too much 
(including xorg-server and kdelibs) was being pulled into it by the USE 
flags, and for safety reasons, portage puts much stronger parallel-emerge-
jobs limitations on @system and its deps, many packages of which are 
piddly little things that kept portage running alone at <1.00 load 
average on a six-core!

So the smaller the set of profile-enabled USE flags and the smaller the 
@system set, the better, and a minimal profile that people can add what 
they need to, would ideally be the recommended profile for most users.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 21 January 2013 12:16, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> > Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> >> I don't build server machines every day, others do and it would be
> >> much appreciated if they could respond here.
> >
> > I build catalyst stage4s. Any default profiles are kindof pointless
> > for me; I have USE=-* and the flags that I want.
> >
> > Anything else seems a bit too random.
>
> This is why I think we do need something like a truly minimal profile
> to start building from. Too many people are doing this.


Remember that we can also modify USE_ORDER to specifically drop profile
flags *or* package-default flags, but not necessarily both.  Maybe this is
something that should be brought "above the table" and documented.  It's a
lot harder to shoot yourself in the foot by just dropping profile flags,
but keeping package defaults.

Of course, that adds another factor to the USE=dri in profile versus
package-default discussion, too.

-Ben Kohler

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1605 bytes --]

Re: How a proper server profile should look like (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...)

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> my 2ct:
> * dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile
> * pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild

Definitely agree. Can we make these changes?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[gentoo-dev] Re: How a proper server profile should look like

[Michael Palimaka]

On 17/01/2013 19:35, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
> <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> my 2ct:
>> * dri and cups should probably be moved to desktop profile
>> * pppd is a local useflag and should be enabled by default in the capi ebuild
>
> Definitely agree. Can we make these changes?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
>
+1

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos
<pchrist@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Err, ok, so now guys, we 're offering a base profile* with dri, cups, gmp,
> fortran and pppd(?) enabled, at the same time openmp enabled but threads
> disabled, no sockets, no caps no apache2 or mysql that I would probably
> want if I wanted to build a server box etc. and we officially drop the
> server profiles (which is true, they're unmaintained for ages).

Keep in mind that the current server profile has all the problems you
just listed as well.

Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the
corresponding packages are actually installed.  For example, the cups
flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do
printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would
you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not
have cups support?).  The only non-desktopy package I see that uses
cups is samba, and if you're setting up a samba server there is a
decent chance you'd want cups anyway.

So, I wouldn't equate minimal as -*.  I think that it makes sense to
have use flags that result in a very conservative installation of the
core packages (which isn't necessarily completely minimal), and which
don't pull in a lot of dependencies for other packages unless most
would want them anyway.

By all means point out use flags that actually do cause issues with
servers.  However, be careful about knee-jerk reactions.  Many flags
really do make sense in context - they don't do anything on a minimal
system, and when they do bring in dependencies they tend to be ones
you'd want anyway.

And, of course, when many of those profiles were first crafted there
were not package-level USE defaults, so that is something we can also
leverage to cut down on global flag settings (one way or the other).

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Christopher Head]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:17:26 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the
> corresponding packages are actually installed.  For example, the cups
> flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do
> printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would
> you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not
> have cups support?).

Really? Yes, I can see plenty of cases where I’d want LO or Chromium
but with USE=-cups, because there’s no printer anywhere in sight. Why
should that mean I don’t want an office suite or a web browser?
Probably not so much foomatic (though maybe there are other printing
frameworks than CUPS that people might use?), but LO and Chromium
absolutely.

Chris

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:17:26 -0500
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Oh, and keep in mind that flags really only have an effect if the
>> corresponding packages are actually installed.  For example, the cups
>> flag doesn't really have an effect unless you install apps that do
>> printing, so it seems pretty safe to leave in a minimal profile (would
>> you really want to install libreoffice, chromium, or foomatic and not
>> have cups support?).
>
> Really? Yes, I can see plenty of cases where I’d want LO or Chromium
> but with USE=-cups, because there’s no printer anywhere in sight. Why
> should that mean I don’t want an office suite or a web browser?
> Probably not so much foomatic (though maybe there are other printing
> frameworks than CUPS that people might use?), but LO and Chromium
> absolutely.

Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but
the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user.  And the context here
is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with
-cups?  If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed
than chromium in the first place.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Christopher Head]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but
> the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user.  And the context here
> is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with
> -cups?  If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed
> than chromium in the first place.

Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but
minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might
make sense.

Chris

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with -cups, but
>> the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user.  And the context here
>> is servers - how many servers would have chromium installed with
>> -cups?  If anything I'd expect more servers to have CUPS installed
>> than chromium in the first place.
>
> Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane but
> minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case USE=cups might
> make sense.

We might be talking past each other.  Sane but minimal is the target.

Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should
have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in
@system - ugh!).  The question is whether a minimal/base system should
have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it.

And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one.  I just want to
make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody
and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being
removed anyway.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 01/17/2013 08:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0500 Rich Freeman
>> <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sure, I can think of reasons why I would want chromium with
>>> -cups, but the whole point is to target the TYPICAL user.  And
>>> the context here is servers - how many servers would have
>>> chromium installed with -cups?  If anything I'd expect more
>>> servers to have CUPS installed than chromium in the first
>>> place.
>> 
>> Sorry, I thought the point was to make the base profile “sane
>> but minimal”, not to make it server-specific. In that case
>> USE=cups might make sense.
> 
> We might be talking past each other.  Sane but minimal is the
> target.
> 
> Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system
> should have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting
> it in @system - ugh!).  The question is whether a minimal/base
> system should have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that
> actually use it.
> 
> And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one.  I just want
> to make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that
> everybody and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice
> them being removed anyway.
> 
> Rich
> 

If you want to make the base profile the "sane minimal" one, dropping
flags is the right way to go. And cups does not belong to such a
profile. Minimal should be ehh minimal and other profiles should build
on top of it. Let the other profiles enable the flags they need.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=/qMW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Christopher Head]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:02:48 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> We might be talking past each other.  Sane but minimal is the target.
> 
> Bottom line is that the question isn't whether a minimal system should
> have CUPS installed (that would be an argument for putting it in
> @system - ugh!).  The question is whether a minimal/base system should
> have the cups USE-flag enabled for packages that actually use it.
> 
> And cups is just an example - maybe not a good one.  I just want to
> make sure we're not just dropping flags left and right that everybody
> and their uncle will either re-enable, or won't notice them being
> removed anyway.

I understand that enabling flags only affects packages if they’re
installed. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, sane-but-minimal should
have CUPS disabled because there are plenty of computers that would
want LibreOffice and/or Chromium installed but not have a printer. They
need not be servers if the target is simply sane-but-minimal.

Chris

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Ben de Groot]

On 19 January 2013 08:01, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:
> I understand that enabling flags only affects packages if they’re
> installed. I’m just saying that, in my opinion, sane-but-minimal should
> have CUPS disabled because there are plenty of computers that would
> want LibreOffice and/or Chromium installed but not have a printer. They
> need not be servers if the target is simply sane-but-minimal.

+1

People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't
see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a
minimal profile, and that includes the simple desktop profile. The kde
and gnome profiles are expected to be more "complete".

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't
> see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a
> minimal profile, and that includes the simple desktop profile. The kde
> and gnome profiles are expected to be more "complete".
>

Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for "normal" users I
think this is really pushing it.  I'm not sure I buy disabling it on
the default profile, let alone the desktop one.

Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers.  However, that figure
has to be fairly low.  Yes, users who have printers can enable it, but
those without printers can also disable it.  I don't think I actually
know anybody who owns a computer but not a printer.  Frequency of use
has to count for something here.

Maybe we should have some kind of use-case to guide how we create each
profile.  I'm concerned that the default profile is going to turn into
something that isn't actually useful for anybody.  It will still be
too heavy for people who are running embedded, it will be way to light
for people who just want a computer that works, it won't have support
for things people need on servers, and so on.  If the "default"
profile isn't actually intended to be used by anybody we can be
up-front about that and then create a profile that actually can be
used.

For the desktop profile I think that it shouldn't pull in
KDE/Gnome-related deps/features (which are REALLY heavy), but
otherwise should be similar to what you'd get on any other
desktop-oriented distro (debian, ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, arch,
etc).  That generally means that the packages that are installed
should be fairly feature-complete, especially around things like
multimedia, etc.  Could you imagine ANY other desktop-oriented distro
not having printer support by default?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Ben de Groot]

On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> People who do have printers can always enable it themselves. I don't
>> see any reason for cups to be enabled by default, especially not on a
>> minimal profile, and that includes the simple desktop profile. The kde
>> and gnome profiles are expected to be more "complete".
>>
>
> Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for "normal" users I
> think this is really pushing it.  I'm not sure I buy disabling it on
> the default profile, let alone the desktop one.

I guess it comes down to either this, or the creation of a truly
minimal profile, which quite a few people really want.

> Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers.  However, that figure
> has to be fairly low.

I'm not so sure about that. The majority of my friends and colleagues
don't own a printer. When we do need to print something, it would be
for work, so we have it printed at work.

>  Yes, users who have printers can enable it, but
> those without printers can also disable it.  I don't think I actually
> know anybody who owns a computer but not a printer.  Frequency of use
> has to count for something here.

Indeed, and from what I see around me, that is fairly low. But this
could be a cultural difference.

> Maybe we should have some kind of use-case to guide how we create each
> profile.  I'm concerned that the default profile is going to turn into
> something that isn't actually useful for anybody.  It will still be
> too heavy for people who are running embedded, it will be way to light
> for people who just want a computer that works, it won't have support
> for things people need on servers, and so on.  If the "default"
> profile isn't actually intended to be used by anybody we can be
> up-front about that and then create a profile that actually can be
> used.

I think the default should be minimal but useful.

> For the desktop profile I think that it shouldn't pull in
> KDE/Gnome-related deps/features (which are REALLY heavy), but
> otherwise should be similar to what you'd get on any other
> desktop-oriented distro (debian, ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, arch,
> etc).  That generally means that the packages that are installed
> should be fairly feature-complete, especially around things like
> multimedia, etc.  Could you imagine ANY other desktop-oriented distro
> not having printer support by default?

Actually, that is what I would expect from the more "basic" oriented
ones like Arch and Debian. Printer support should be an optional
add-on, not part of the basic install. Maybe I'm too idealistic...

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

[Duncan]

Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:47:58 +0800 as excerpted:

> On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> People who do have printers can always enable [USE=cups] themselves.
>>>
>> Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for "normal" users I think
>> this is really pushing it.
> 
>> Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers.  However, that figure has
>> to be fairly low.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. The majority of my friends and colleagues
> don't own a printer. When we do need to print something, it would be for
> work, so we have it printed at work.

I recently heard someone /else/ recommend no printer, pointing out that 
it was an additional expense without a lot of practical benefit for many, 
since ink is expensive, the cheap printers are fiddly and often break, 
and if you /really/ want something printed, it's easy enough to load it 
on a thumb-drive and take it to kinkos or the library (or as Ben 
suggests, work).

I had come to that conclusion for myself some time ago and haven't had a 
printer in years... I won't do inkjet and I always seem to have something 
better to do with the money that'd buy a decent laser.  But it was still 
rather surprising to me, as like Rich, I'm from the generation where it 
was just assumed that if you had a computer, you had, and needed, a 
printer.  So to hear (it was a meatspace conversation, with "average 
folks", not geeks) someone ELSE say "take it to kinko's if you want to 
print something" was /indeed/ quite surprising/enlightening.

So yes, I suppose it really is a generational/cultural thing.  "The 
tablet generation" and "the smartphone generation" are rather more likely 
to find the idea of simply assuming that everyone with a computer/tablet/
smartphone also has a bulky/balky printer...  rather quaint.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: removing the server profiles...

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/19/2013 12:05 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Ben de Groot posted on Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:47:58 +0800 as excerpted:
> 
>> On 19 January 2013 18:26, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> People who do have printers can always enable [USE=cups] themselves.
>>>>
>>> Unless we plan on adding yet another profile for "normal" users I think
>>> this is really pushing it.
>>
>>> Yes, I'm sure some people don't own printers.  However, that figure has
>>> to be fairly low.
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. The majority of my friends and colleagues
>> don't own a printer. When we do need to print something, it would be for
>> work, so we have it printed at work.
> 
> I recently heard someone /else/ recommend no printer, pointing out that 
> it was an additional expense without a lot of practical benefit for many, 
> since ink is expensive, the cheap printers are fiddly and often break, 
> and if you /really/ want something printed, it's easy enough to load it 
> on a thumb-drive and take it to kinkos or the library (or as Ben 
> suggests, work).
> 
> I had come to that conclusion for myself some time ago and haven't had a 
> printer in years... I won't do inkjet and I always seem to have something 
> better to do with the money that'd buy a decent laser.  But it was still 
> rather surprising to me, as like Rich, I'm from the generation where it 
> was just assumed that if you had a computer, you had, and needed, a 
> printer.  So to hear (it was a meatspace conversation, with "average 
> folks", not geeks) someone ELSE say "take it to kinko's if you want to 
> print something" was /indeed/ quite surprising/enlightening.

Removing cups from the default profile and putting it in the desktop
profile makes sense. I don't print from everything, but I often print
from things using the desktop profile.  If a user really doesn't want
cups they can always adjust their make.conf.  Let's not bikeshed on this
forever, we are only setting a sane default not removing the user's choice.

Honestly it can be as simple as "cups is default now and removing that
will break a lot of desktop users". So again, I vote for moving it to
the desktop profile, but not for removing it altogether as that would
break a lot of users.

- -Zero

> 
> So yes, I suppose it really is a generational/cultural thing.  "The 
> tablet generation" and "the smartphone generation" are rather more likely 
> to find the idea of simply assuming that everyone with a computer/tablet/
> smartphone also has a bulky/balky printer...  rather quaint.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=OBjr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 19/01/13 05:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Actually, that is what I would expect from the more "basic"
> oriented ones like Arch and Debian. Printer support should be an
> optional add-on, not part of the basic install. Maybe I'm too
> idealistic...
> 

Well, it's not part of the basic install -- cups isn't part of
@system.  It's just installed when you install something that has
compile-time printer support, afaik.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD68s4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB4pAD/cAJF+K7srugh5gpzaijoanLM
s3xGUrWdNl8yQH2l9CMA/0mCq1ThqhSaDUv0b0cjSGuoSwVWz3PX8BQC5OwylPKp
=EEv8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] removing the server profiles...

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:36:18 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> Hi, 
> 
> several people have pointed out to me that the 10.0 -> 13.0 transition would 
> be a good moment to finally remove the (also in my opinion rather useless) 
> server profiles. 
> 
> The easiest way to do this would be to 
> * just not copy the server profiles from 10.0 to 13.0 and
> * have the deprecation warning for "10.0/server" point to "13.0" (i.e. prompt 
> users to upgrade from the 10.0 server profile to the 13.0 base profile).

whenever the rest of the developers reach a consensus, please file a bug report to let the documentation team know what changes we need to make to the upgrade guide and other docs. thanks!


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]